Article View: alt.comp.hardware
Article #1167Re: Install win xp over a network
From: kony
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:22
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:22
38 lines
2995 bytes
2995 bytes
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:12:02 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote: >> No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer >> data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem, > >An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot. It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing. > >However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually >bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic. "Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to care what it's doing with the network is idle, only that during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter. > >> the >> focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration. >> Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like >> moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in >> itemizing every possible network performance limiter when >> the topic was already isolating one parameter. > >I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't >that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for >netbeui don't justify keeping it. > No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial limit isn't reasonable to assume either.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<t5n4f1tqaq5kea87haicq5dttkukp6ohll@4ax.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s71.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mailReferences:
<da5i0p$jod$1@bagan.srce.hr> <42C69324.E7CE4F55@Guy.com> <11cdei2sde3uhf3@corp.supernews.com> <42C6C261.4C027A05@Guy.com> <11cepgdibul6iae@corp.supernews.com> <2p03f1ho73331t7i1a3quo29p0lorhkebf@4ax.com> <de63f1h0lbkhp5jqo7nk803k174qjofiu0@4ax.com> <11f3k9034f43da8@corp.supernews.com> <u8i4f1h9hq073ufb3p1ud8ad009irc4d3b@4ax.com> <11f4mjimro0qoa7@corp.supernews.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: f5f89,ea7de1b713e27c5b X-Google-Thread: f70d1,ea7de1b713e27c5b X-Google-Thread: 10a2ed,ea7de1b713e27c5b X-Google-Thread: 108c83,ea7de1b713e27c5b X-Google-Attributes: gidf5f89,gidf70d1,gid10a2ed,gid108c83,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!wns14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s71.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: kony <spam@spam.com> Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware Subject: Re: Install win xp over a network Reply-To: spam@spam.com Message-ID: <t5n4f1tqaq5kea87haicq5dttkukp6ohll@4ax.com> References: <da5i0p$jod$1@bagan.srce.hr> <42C69324.E7CE4F55@Guy.com> <11cdei2sde3uhf3@corp.supernews.com> <42C6C261.4C027A05@Guy.com> <11cepgdibul6iae@corp.supernews.com> <2p03f1ho73331t7i1a3quo29p0lorhkebf@4ax.com> <de63f1h0lbkhp5jqo7nk803k174qjofiu0@4ax.com> <11f3k9034f43da8@corp.supernews.com> <u8i4f1h9hq073ufb3p1ud8ad009irc4d3b@4ax.com> <11f4mjimro0qoa7@corp.supernews.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 41 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.203.138.253 X-Complaints-To: abuse@asp.att.net X-Trace: attbi_s71 1123179737 12.203.138.253 (Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:22:17 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:22:17 GMT Organization: AT&T ASP.att.net Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:22:17 GMT